(a) Changes affecting voting shall be submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of the submitting authority or by any other authorized person on behalf of the submitting authority. A State, whether partially or fully covered, has authority to submit any voting change on behalf of its covered jurisdictions and political subunits. Where a State is covered as a whole, State legislation or other changes undertaken or required by the State shall be submitted by the State (except that legislation of local applicability may be submitted by political subunits). Where a State is partially covered, changes of statewide application may be submitted by the State. Submissions from the State, rather than from the individual covered jurisdictions, would serve the State's interest in at least two important respects: first, the State is better able to explain to the Attorney General the purpose and effect of voting changes it enacts than are the individual covered jurisdictions; second, a single submission of the voting change on behalf of all of the covered jurisdictions would reduce the possibility that some State acts will be legally enforceable in some parts of the State but not in others.
(b) A change effected by a political party (see § 51.7) may be submitted by an appropriate official of the political party.
(c) A change affecting voting that results from a State court order should be submitted by the jurisdiction or entity that is to implement or administer the change (in the manner specified by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section).
[Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21245, Apr. 15, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996)
scotus · cites it 4×
“Since then, however, the Attorney General has clarified that "an appropriate official of the political party" may submit party rules affecting *203 voting for preclearance, 28 CFR § 51.23 (b) (1993), thereby eliminating this one practical obstacle.”
LaRoque v. Holder (2011)
cadc
“§ 1973c(a); 28 C.F.R. § 51.23 . So far, Kinston has neither joined this lawsuit nor exercised its right to request reconsideration of the Attorney General’s objection.”
Florida v. United States (2012)
dcd · cites it 2×
“A, it is clear that both of the electoral changes for which Florida seeks approval come within the purview of the Act, because they both involve changes to voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or “standard[s], practice^], or procedure[s] with respect to voting.”
United States v. State of Texas (1978)
txsd
“In a letter dated August 24, 1976, counsel for the County Commissioners made the following statement: “Pursuant to the provisions of 28 C.F.R. § 51.23 (1975), the Commissioners Court of Waller County presents this request for reconsideration of the Attorney General’s objection…”
Diaz v. Silver (1997)
nyed
“28 C.F.R. § 51.23 (a). Section 51.27 describes the required information: paragraphs (a) and (b) require copies of the existing law and proposed changes; paragraph (c) requires the submitting party to explain the reasons for the change: (c) If the change affecting voting either…”
Dotson v. City of Indianola, Miss. (1981)
msnd
“875 (1981) (to be codified in 28 CFR § 51.23 ). 4 . Counsel for plaintiffs advise the court that they propose to contest the chancery court petition.”
Harris v. Levi (1976)
dcd
“” 28 C.F.R. § 51.23 (a) (1974). Similarly, the regulations permit the Attorney General to withdraw an objection after re *210 consideration only if he acts on the basis of “information not previously available” to the state.”
Mi Familia Vota Education Fund v. Detzner (2012)
flmd · cites it 2×
“” 28 C.F.R. § 51.23 . At least one district court has recognized that “Congress intended that either the legislative body that enacted the legislation or the executive body that was responsible for administering the legislation would be responsible for obtaining preclearance.”
Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine (2005)
sdd
“See 28 C.F.R. § 51.23 (a). Nothing in the Remedial Order prevents the State from submitting the Remedial Order’s apportionment plan for preclearance on its own volition.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.